HOMAN: We're gonna take a lot of hate, we're going to be sued. Every day, numerous times.

I think you'll see the left try to control the media. They're going to show the first crying female, the first crying child. Say how inhumane we are. But, they won't talk about the 340,000 children that they've failed to take care of. They're not gonna talk about the young women who've been murdered in this country at the hands of criminal cartels.

Trump isn’t rewriting the 14th Amendment; he’s applying the law as it is, based on its plain language and the Supreme Court’s existing precedent. //

The 14th Amendment — ratified after the Civil War and ensuring that former slaves were U.S. citizens — provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The plaintiffs focus on the first part, but barely glance at the second, arguing that, with few exceptions (such as the children of foreign diplomats in the United States), anyone born in the United States is “subject to its jurisdiction,” simply by virtue of being within its borders.

They do this by relying almost entirely on United States v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that the plaintiffs get hopelessly wrong. In Wong, the court held that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants was a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment. Omitting some key facts, the plaintiffs argue this means that all children born in the United States of all immigrant parents, with the aforementioned very rare exceptions, automatically are U.S. citizens. Even a cursory read of the opinion, however, shows that the Supreme Court ruled nothing of the sort.

Wong was born in California and lived his entire life in the United States, until he took two trips to China to visit family as an adult. The first time he returned to the United States, he was admitted through customs as a U.S. citizen. A few years later, after visiting China a second time, he was denied reentry after a customs official concluded that he was not a citizen, because his parents were not U.S. citizens when he was born here.

SCOTUS sided with Wong, but for a very important reason the plaintiffs fail to mention: Wong’s parents were legal immigrants to the United States. The entire foundation of the plaintiffs’ argument — that SCOTUS has already upheld birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants by this decision — is therefore completely and obviously wrong.

In rendering its opinion, SCOTUS dove deep into the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” What they found, tracing back hundreds of years through English common law, is that the phrase is rooted in a mutual relationship of “allegiance and protection” between the individual and the sovereign (historically a king, but the nation here). Children “born in the allegiance,” and therefore citizens entitled to “protection” at birth, included children born to subjects of the king, as well as children born to “aliens in amity” — that is, aliens lawfully “domiciled” there with the king’s consent. Notably, the court found that this did not extend to the children of aliens in “hostile occupation of part of our territory.”

Consent is the operative word. In ruling for Wong, the Supreme Court made clear that the United States has a say in who is subject to its jurisdiction, noting that noncitizens like Wong’s parents are “entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here” (emphasis added). In Wong’s case, this meant that the 14th Amendment granted him citizenship because he was: (1) born in the United States; and (2) subject to its jurisdiction, due to the fact that his parents were lawful immigrants permitted by the United States to reside here at the time he was born.

Removing this garbage from the military—and I'm under no illusion that the Air Force is unique in having commands that are surreptitiously telling the Commander-in-Chief to get lost—will require diligent effort and ruthlessness. Anyone involved in rebranding USAF DEI programs must be terminated if civilian or administratively separated if military. What we are seeing here is really nothing less than a mutiny.

On inauguration day, President Trump pardoned or commuted the sentences of the approximately 1,550 defendants convicted for their involvement with the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol. He also ordered DOJ to dismiss all other pending indictments. Most of them, about 900, were for non-violent misdemeanors such as trespass and disorderly conduct. He granted the clemency all at once, and did not begin with pardoning the non-violent misdemeanor defendants first and then examining the remaining defendants on a case-by-case basis as he and others previously had suggested.

Meanwhile, on the very same day, just 15 minutes before he left office, President Biden issued the last set of his own pardons. He granted them to members of his family, most notably his brothers, sister, and in-laws, as well as to members of his administration such as Dr. Anthony Fauci and General Mark Milley, and even to political supporters like the congressional January 6 committee members. Biden's pardons followed thousands of pardons he issued this month to what he claimed were non-violent federal offenders and commutations of virtually all federal death penalties.

Many Democrats and media outlets have criticized Trump's mass clemency for the January 6 defendants, even as they casually ignored President Biden's. But let's put aside the hypocrisy for a moment to examine the real differences between the two sets of pardons, regardless of one's views of their merits.

First, Biden granted pardons and commutations to more than 8,000 individuals, which is more than any other modern president. Thousands of Biden's clemency grants were to serious criminals, including murderers, child killers, child abusers, and the biggest municipal embezzler in history, Rita Crundwell. Several of the grants benefitted well-connected Democrats. In both 2022 and 2024, Biden abused his pardon power to achieve mass sentencing reductions that Congress refused to pass by law. President Obama did the same thing when he issued mass commutations of drug sentences. //

Second, it's obviously not principle but politics that drove Biden's pardons; Biden's post-election mass death row commutations did not follow his self-proclaimed opposition to the death penalty. He left three men on death row whose commutations would have politically harmed Democrats. He did not commute the sentences of Dzhokar Tsarnaev (Boston Marathon bomber), Dylann Roof (murderer of nine black churchgoers in Charleston), and Robert Bowers (murderer of 11 worshippers a synagogue in Squirrel Hill, PA). Biden's alleged opposition to the death penalty also did not prevent DOJ from filing capital murder charges against Luigi Mangione.

Third, President Biden needs to pardon his family, officials, and allies only because he fears the very lawfare that he invented. Biden's DOJ broke more than two centuries of history to prosecute a former president and the candidate of the major opposition political party. He is like an arsonist who demands more spending on fire departments. Because of his stated fear of retaliation, Biden pardoned his family and associates before prosecutors ever launched investigations. These pardons were to Biden's own benefit, as their reciipients are much less likely to disclose any information that directly implicate President Biden to the family's alleged "pay to play, 10 percent for the Big Guy" schemes.

Contrast that with Trump's clemency, which did not directly benefit him or his family, and covered defendants who were actually convicted or charged, unlike Biden's preemptive pardons that covered up to 10 years' worth of potential and actual criminal activity for his family and allies. //

Democrats have resorted to pardons because they appear to expect lawfare to continue. DOJ released Jack Smith's special counsel J6 report even though Trump had won the election and DOJ could no longer pursue charges. It is even trying to release the special counsel report about the Florida classified documents case, even though Trump's co-defendants are entitled to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Both President Trump and Attorney General–designate Pam Bondi are positioned to stop the lawfare, but only if the Democrats abjure their politicization of criminal justice. Lawfare can descend on Democrats as easily as on Republicans.

Americans voted for Donald Trump because they saw these institutions being gamed," Gutfeld declared. "Every single part of society was being gamed by the left. And, finally, Americans got pushed too far."

"You don't have to like everything in the restaurant to like the restaurant," Gutfeld explained. "There are things that Trump will do that I will disagree with. But the entire package is the closest you're going to get to what Americans want."

Kyle Becker
@kylenabecker
·
Follow
"That is a gamechanger."

JUST IN: 'Border Czar' Tom Homan reports there are now ZERO CBP-One App releases and total apprehensions at the southern border have DROPPED to 766.

This is compared to 10,000 to 12,000 per day under Biden.

What a difference a president makes.

Last edited
6:40 AM · Jan 22, 2025. //

“We’re going to enforce the immigration law.”. //

epaddon
a day ago edited
Homan is in effect adopting the "seatbelt" strategy. Just as you can't get pulled over just because you're not wearing a seatbelt but you can get cited if you're pulled over for something else and you're not wearing a seatbelt he's saying they're not going out to target the "nonviolent" illegals but if they happen to be in company with those who are violent when they get rounded up, they will be arrested too since they are still lawbreakers.

Fashion and the arts have long sought to be transgressive, but the institutional capture of the arts by sartorial Marxists has turned offending the senses into a, well, art form. Things that normies think are weird — like Ella Emhoff’s attempt to turn armpit hair into a fashion accessory — are celebrated by the editors at fashion magazines precisely because they offend all of those normal people of small minds and small towns who voted for Trump.

See also: A freak with chest hair in a skirt and 2-inch nails got invited to the Biden White House to be a “Gen Z intern” for a day, and landed a spot in Vogue for it.

Then, on Monday, Melania Trump dared to show up looking not just not weird, but belligerently not so. With its intense lines and visor-like millinery, her no-nonsense costume would have fit well into the military-inspired trends of the 1940s. It reminded me of the impeccably dressed Nazi chick who fought Indiana Jones for the Holy Grail — a comparison which The New York Times would probably hold against Melania personally if they noticed it.

It’s true that most inaugural outfits tend on the conservative side, if for no other reason than the frigid January temperatures provide an incentive to cover up. (This year, Jeff Bezos’ fiancée Lauren Sánchez took advantage of the ceremony’s indoor nature to unburden herself of that limitation.) Like Melania, the other women in the presidential party were dressed in muted monochrome and simple, flattering silhouettes. The Trump women and Mrs. Vance — whose coat The Washington Post described as “1960s-ish” — all donned such classic looks that the Post declared they had put “the fashion in old-fashioned.”

The New York Times faulted Mrs. Trump for daring to look too regal, describing her look as “less elevated accessibility than British royal walkabout.” The Post had a similar critique of Ivanka, saying she “looked more like she was heading to a British royal’s wedding in the 1990s than a 2025 celebration of democracy.” How fascist and undemocratic of them!

And then there were the Inaugural Ball gowns. The six women onstage — Melania, Ivanka, Lara, Tiffany, and Kai Trump, and Usha Vance — painted a patriotic color palette with one in red, one in blue, and the rest in varying shades of champagne and white. //

Ivanka’s Givenchy reproduction of Audrey Hepburn’s famous gown in Sabrina was a literal throwback, but all the gowns, as the Times observed, “called to mind eras gone by” and nodded to the American “golden age” that Trump heralded in his speech earlier the same day. //

The Post’s fashion critic, who called Monday’s looks “largely devoid of glamour” and “stodgy,” compared the aesthetics of Trump’s second inauguration to those of Reagan’s second, which was also held indoors. Evidently forgetting that Reagan’s winning message that year was “Morning in America,” she wrote these two lines:

“The golden age of America begins right now,” Trump said in his inaugural speech.

Yet on the stages at inauguration events and on the streets of Washington, things looked less like a new future and a lot like the 1980s.

Clearly she has never met someone who grew up in the 80s, because they will all tell you it was America’s golden age. After more than eight years of hearing Trump’s famous slogan, these people are still missing what everyone else loves about it. The slogan’s fourth word exists because the people who say it believe America has already produced greatness, and they want to protect it from those who would give, explain, or deny it away.

“Style, for this second administration, is looking back,” she complained.

On that point, she’s kind of right. The coats, gowns, and hats on parade Monday brought back a refreshing dose of old-fashioned glamour and Americana. It’s a shame we can’t agree that’s a good thing.

Matt Viser
@mviser
·
Follow
President Trump sits and takes question after question from reporters in the Oval Office, something that almost never happened with President Biden.
7:53 PM · Jan 20, 2025

Chris D. Jackson @ChrisDJackson
·
Replying to @mviser
[Biden] Literally did the same thing on his first day.

10:08 PM · Jan 20, 2025

Matt Viser @mviser
·
Replying to @ChrisDJackson
The transcript from that day indicates Biden spoke for less than 3 minutes and took 1 question.
10:30 PM · Jan 20, 2025

During my morning perusal of X, I came across a post from Chaya Raichik's "Libs of TikTok" account that I thought really summed up a change we didn't just feel, but saw. With the Biden administration out and the Trump administration in, a change of aesthetics occurred, and it began with the Trump family.

Melania Trump was, as always, the definition of beauty, grace, and poise, but so did Ivanka Trump, as usual. In fact, all the Trump women looked incredible, from Melania to Kai Trump. A really great moment from yesterday, that went under the radar, was when the Trump family was sitting on the stage at Capitol One stadium. Trump hadn't arrived yet, but the crowd was showering the family with praise. The camera displayed a family that looked clean, healthy, happy, and beautiful. //

It wasn't that long ago that we were being force-fed something entirely different and being told that it's good and beautiful.

The Biden family is corrupt. So corrupt that it apparently needed pardons, and with that corruption came people who displayed the opposite of beauty. In fact, it spit in the face of beauty in order to push non-conventional "beauty." //

Libs of TikTok @libsoftiktok
·
Class is back.
5:45 AM · Jan 21, 2025

Understand, this isn't just about a beauty standard, this is about a path America could take. This is literally a "which way, Western world" moment.

To further solidify my point, I want to show you how the degeneracy of the Biden family produced outward ugliness that was often a politically-based rejection of tradition and goodness.

Back in June, I compiled a list of deviants the Biden administration had attracted, some of whom it even employed. //

The outward aesthetic matched the inward state of the soul. The Biden administration chose ugliness in so many forms because its corruption and degenerate politics caused a physical display of resistance to traditional beauty.

To make myself clear here, beauty can come in many forms, but even a person who people would consider to be less than attractive can be beautiful thanks to an inner goodness that shines through. Class and morality go a long way in outward presentation.

Roald Dahl had a very interesting quote about this:

“If a person has ugly thoughts, it begins to show on the face. And when that person has ugly thoughts every day, every week, every year, the face gets uglier and uglier until you can hardly bear to look at it.

A person who has good thoughts cannot ever be ugly. You can have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth and a double chin and stick-out teeth, but if you have good thoughts it will shine out of your face like sunbeams and you will always look lovely.”

"Those who wished to stop our cause have tried to take my freedom and, indeed, to take my life," said Trump. "Just a few months ago, in a beautiful Pennsylvania field, an assassin's bullet ripped through my ear."

"I felt then and believe even more so now that my life was saved for a reason: I was saved by God to make America great again," Trump said. //

There was talk in the RedState live blog about whether that moment deepened Trump's faith. It appears that it did. Trump's words in his speech indicate a man who, if he didn't believe before, truly does now.

Moreover, this should be a wake-up moment for a lot of Americans. There is something far bigger than us guiding events. Trump was sworn in today, but God is the one who is truly in charge. We might have elected Trump, but God appointed him. That was made clear when the "millimeter miracle" as Pastor Lorenzo Sewell so eloquently put it during his prayer, happened in Butler. //

redstateuser
21 hours ago
As an American, and even as a Christian, I've always held back from the stated notion or suggestion that God preferred The United States of America, as that seemed in my mind to diminish the humanity of all other people in all other countries who, as my faith informs me, are just as sacred in God's eyes as is any American.
However, I must blend in to my belief the comments I've read over many years from those in other countries who indeed look up to the United States of America and who do so I must believe with no disrespect to themselves, to their fellow citizens, or to their country. I don't think I truly grasp the depth of this. It's not easily evident to me but a slow realization of how the might and intent of a well-functioning United States of America is admired, wanted, and even needed by other peoples around the world, as a force for good and a model for imitation.
So, to the extent that such admiration is actually true, I can allow the idea that God could prefer the size and might of The United States of America to succeed and be deserved of such admiration, and that He would prefer this over other less benevolent political alternatives existing in the world. As long as I don't allow ego to adulterate what I am trying to say, perhaps I can allow this blending to occur in my Christian beliefs.
I've tried to state this well. I hope I have done well enough.
Thank you.

Sarcastic Frog redstateuser
19 hours ago
I can appreciate your struggle with this.
God has a chosen people: Israel.
Having said that, at various times God has "chosen" a person or a nation to do certain things. That doesn't make them "better" than another person or nation; to the contrary, it puts a much greater burden of accountability on that person or nation. Anybody bragging about "preference" doesn't know what they're talking about.

Public Citizen redstateuser
17 hours ago
This nation was founded by Godly and God Fearing Men.
The remarks of Sarcastic Frog are pertinent.
I would add that even Israel has been subject to God's Chastisement from time to time.
The USA, because of its founding and foundational principals has served as God's Chosen Implement from time to time.
It's my belief that even Joe Biden has been one of those implements, serving as a tool to teach a nation straying from its founding principals the consequences of such waywardness.
We now have before us a time to set our collective house in order and return to those principals, including those GODLY PRINCIPALS that made this nation the Great Nation that it has been in the past.

I think placing high-profile and very credible critics inside the military's civilian bureaucracy may prove to be a masterstroke. First, it rubs the noses of those who toadied to the forces of DEI, CRT, transgenderism, and every other social science fad in their own ordure every day just by their existence. Much like Biden and Kamala had to sit at the front of a packed auditorium during Trump's inauguration and listen to him castigate their loathsome term in office, Scheller and Lohmeier will condemn the people who punished them every day by just existing. Second, their presence in the upper reaches of DOD will encourage whistleblowers to report on people who are part of the resistance. Finally, if Scheller and Lohmeier can impart a fraction of their passion for military virtues to the Armed Services, they will have done the nation an everlasting favor.

Naturally, Melania Trump won the day—it’s a little like pitting Brett Favre against a middle school flag football team, but thems the rules—in her long navy silk-wool coat under a cream blouse designed by New York–based designer Adam Lippes, and that matching hat by Eric Javits. How this woman was able to pull off a topper that not only obscured half of her face but looked so sharp it might be the understudy for a circular saw is a testimony to Slovenian bone structure and understanding one’s angles.

Not since Lincoln’s stovepipe has a hat been so well-worn in our nation’s capital. Though this one did a better job of protecting her from unwanted contact—including from her own husband. Melania finished off the look with black leather gloves and navy Manolo Blahnik pumps. Notes? None. The memes are already legion, including ones comparing the first lady to Carmen Sandiego. //

Meanwhile, Pennsylvania senator John Fetterman rolled up in a look that if he were anyone else, would have been grounds for censure. He was in gray athletic shorts, a black hoodie, and running shoes. At the presidential inauguration. But alas, Fetterman has fashion immunity, granted by the most high, to wear wherever the hell he wants.

Milley, the retired Army general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who on several occasions subverted orders from his Commander-in-Chief, had his portrait removed from the Pentagon within two hours of President Donald Trump's inauguration.

The portrait's removal has been confirmed by CNN and Reuters. It had been revealed just 10 days ago. //

Of those pardoned by Biden, Milley stands out as having taken actions that could reasonably be described as treason. It is far from hyperbole in the case of the former Joint Chiefs Chair.

Milley, according to a book titled "Peril," assured his counterpart, General Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army of China, in the final days of Trump's first term that the United States military would not strike the communist country. Even if Trump ordered such actions based on his assessment they were in the best interest of the defense of America.

Perhaps most astonishing was the quote from that book, which shows Milley was willing to warn China — a hostile foreign nation — if an attack was in the works. //

Trump's nominee for FBI Director, Kash Patel, in an exclusive interview with RedState, suggested Milley contravened authorization from then-President Trump regarding the deployment of the National Guard on January 6th.

Milley had claimed the National Guard was deployed to the Capitol at “sprint speed.”

However, congressional testimony from Brig. Gen. Aaron R. Dean II, then the Guard’s adjutant general, suggested the deployment was stalled for the sake of optics, as evidenced by several calls to Ryan D. McCarthy, the Secretary of the Army at the time, to commence deployment going "directly to voice mail.". //

MyDogsMum TXavatar
7 hours ago
Does the pardon exempt him from a dishonorable discharge?

Mike Ford MyDogsMum
6 hours ago edited
Yes. A dishonorable requires conviction by a General Court Martial. A GCM is part of the same federal “sovereign.”

The Biden pardon precludes that
Streiff and I had that phone conversation earlier today.

Having said that, the pardon removes his self incrimination protection and do he can be compelled to testify regarding anything he has done prior to the Biden pardon.

Carey J Dolfin9999
6 hours ago
The Fifth Amendment only protects you from self-incrimination, which requires legal jeopardy. The pardon removed the legal jeopardy, making it impossible for him to incriminate himself. Therefore, he can be required to testify about ANYTHING he has knowledge of, or face Contempt of Court/Congress charges. If he lies under oath, he is subject to perjury charges.

I’m guessing it would take quite a lot to cross California Democrat Sen. Adam Schiff’s ethical line because in Donald Trump’s first term and in the subsequent corrupt J6 Committee, the long-necked Democrat proved that he was willing to do just about anything to “get Trump.” As fierce and nasty a partisan as you could find in The Swamp, Schiff was a leader of both impeachment trials against the 45th president—now the 47th president—and for years promised evidence of Russia collusion that he never produced.

We're still waiting, Adam.

He is so dishonest that the House censured him in 2023, making him only the 25th House lawmaker to face the punishment in U.S. history.

But evidently, Adam has found someone even more corrupt than himself: former (oh, I type that with such glee!) President Joe Biden, who has thrown out a slew of pardons in his waning days in office. Even Schiff was able to see that the pardons were not in the best interests of the country: //

He tries to claim that Biden’s J6 Committee pardons were “unnecessary” and “unwise” because he and fellow committee members, former Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) and Liz Cheney (R-WY) did such “important work.” But if it was so important, why did Trump become president on Monday despite your stunning conclusions, and why does Biden feel the need to give you a preemptive pardon? A classic Shakespeare quote comes to mind, Adam: You "doth protest too much, methinks." //

When one of the most ethically challenged people ever to cast a cloud over Congress says you've crossed a line, you've really, really crossed a line. //

It wasnt me
43 minutes ago
He doesn't have to accept the Pardon.

Submitted by another.
In the 1915 Supreme Court case Burdick v. United States, the Court ruled that a pardon carries an "imputation of guilt". The Court also stated that accepting a pardon was "an admission of guilt". //

Black Magic
8 minutes ago
“I continue to believe that the grant of pardons to a committee that undertook such important work to uphold the law was unnecessary, and because of the precedent it establishes, unwise,”

Buuuut......I'll take it.

President Trump's State Department transition team has asked scores of bureaucrats to resign from their positions no later than noon on Monday. The focus of the changes seems aimed at gutting the notoriously recalcitrant, hidebound, and, yes, leftist State Department staff and preventing any centers of resistance from forming as Marco Rubio builds his team. //

Rubio's team is forcing out basically all of State's second tier leadership and replacing them with handpicked personnel, including people called out of retirement. //

GBenton
3 hours ago
Should I call a doctor NOW? This has lasted since November 5th and shows no signs of letting up.

Damocles GBenton
3 hours ago
I'm not a doctor, but I play one on the weekends.... and I diagnose you with Winning!
Right now there is no cure, so enjoy...

Quite honestly, I don't see the case for not grinding ByteDance's commie face in the gravel. It has already said divestiture is off the table. If it would let TikTok, which is worth billions of dollars, die rather than sell it, that tells you the real purpose was never to make money. It is equally difficult to see how a company that Trump castigated this way in 2020:

"TikTok automatically captures vast swaths of information from its users, including Internet and other network activity information such as location data and browsing and search histories. This data collection threatens to allow the Chinese Communist Party access to Americans’ personal and proprietary information — potentially allowing China to track the locations of Federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage."

becomes better without changing the underlying problem;

it’s past time for Republicans to provide a pithy answer to counter the Democrat’s deceptive question.

As I explained last year when the legacy media hounded then-Sen. J.D. Vance to say Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, there is a fundamental flaw in the question: “The query includes an undefined term — ‘lost’ — which holds a different meaning to Trump supporters and to the anti-Trump inquisitors.”

“If ‘lost’ merely meant Biden is the president of the United States, then that’s an easy answer: Yes, of course, Trump lost, as Biden was inaugurated,” and he is currently nearing the end of his four disastrous years in the Oval Office. But that’s not what those demanding an acknowledgement that Trump lost mean by “lost,” and yesterday’s hearings confirmed that reality, for Bondi repeatedly and expressly attested that, yes, Joe Biden is the president of the United States.

What Durbin, Blumenthal, and pretty much everyone else demanding a “yes” or “no” answer to whether Trump lost the 2020 election seek is a concession that Trump’s election challenges were frivolous, unfounded, or wrong. Democrats inject such concessions into their meaning of “lost.”

That’s why Bondi answered Durbin’s question as she did, by stating both that she accepted that Biden is president of the United States and that she saw firsthand issues in Pennsylvania’s election.

In other words, it depends on what you mean by “lost.”. //

“If asked whether Trump ‘lost’ the 2020 election, meaning that if all legal votes were counted and all illegal counts discarded — and the counting was done legally pursuant to controlling election law —” the answer should be a resounding, “I don’t know.”

As I wrote last year: “No one can possibly know the answer to that question because in 2020 there were too many election laws violated or ignored, and too many illegal votes counted. But the lawsuits challenging the election outcomes were tossed as moot once the votes were certified, so there was never a determination on the validity of the tallies, leaving uncertain the accuracy of the election results.” //

So, here’s a simple, soundbite for the next Trump nominee cornered with the query, “Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?”

“It depends on what you mean by ‘lose.’ Joe Biden is the president of the United States. But Biden did not win a free and fair election, and the country has suffered the devastating consequences for the last four years as a result of the Biden presidency.”

And the 2020 election was not free and fair: Not when the FBI pre-bunked the Hunter Biden laptop story, causing social media companies to censor the evidence of Joe Biden’s involvement in his son’s pay-to-play scandal; not when the Biden campaign’s senior advisor, Antony Blinken, “set in motion” the release of a public statement signed by 51 former intelligence agents that falsely framed Hunter’s laptop as Russian disinformation; not when there were “systemic violations of election law” which “disparately favor[ed] one candidate,” and “allow[ed] for tens of thousands of illegal votes to be counted;” and not when illegal drop box were placed in Democrat-heavy precincts and Zuckbucks were used to get out the Democrat vote.

As a nation founded on the revolutionary truth that “all men are created equal” with rights that come not from man but from God, we will never be indifferent to the suffering of our fellow man. But ultimately, under President Trump, the top priority of the United States Department of State must be and will be the United States. The direction he has given for the conduct of our foreign policy is clear. Every dollar we spend, every program we fund, and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions:

• Does it make America safer?

• Does it make America stronger?

• Does it make America more prosperous?

Under President Trump, the dollars of hardworking American taxpayers will always be spent wisely and our power will always be yielded prudently, and toward what is best for America and Americans above all else. //

Rubio struck a very serious tone as he discussed the foreign policy priorities of Donald Trump, and competently answered all of the questions from the panel. Rubio's answer to a question from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) showed what the power structure will be like in the new administration:

"The foreign policy of the United States will be set by the president, and my job will be to advise and execute."

But one of the most interesting exchanges was with new Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT), who was able to unseat Jon Tester in Big Sky Country, and he was impressive in his questioning of Hegseth. It was hilarious, but it also got to the most important quality that a SecDef needs to have.

Eric Daugherty
@EricLDaugh
·
Follow
SENATOR TIM SHEEHY: How many genders are there?

HEGSETH: Two.

SHEEHY: I know that well, I'm a "she-he (Sheehy)." What is the diameter of a rifle round fired out of an M4A1?

HEGSETH: 5.56.

SHEEHY: How many pushups can you do?

HEGSETH: I did 5 sets of 47 this morning.

SHEEHY: Most important strategic base is in the Pacific?

HEGSETH: Guam.

SHEEHY: How many rounds of 5.56 can you fit into the magazine of an M4 rifle?

HEGSETH: Standard issue is 30.

SHEEHY: What size round is the M9 Beretta standard issue sidearm for the military?

HEGSETH: 9mm.

SHEEHY: What kind of batteries do you put in your night vision goggle?

HEGSETH: Duracell.

SHEEHY: You represent what warfighters deal with every day on the battlefield. You understand them. What happens is - decisions made in rooms like this cause d*ad 17, 18, 19-year-old Americans. Your priority is warfighters. I support you.

In case you aren't acquainted with the details, Ratcliffe is nailing Rep. Adam Schiff in the above excerpt. He was the "chairman of the intelligence committee" that went on various news programs to lie to the American people and claim that the Hunter Biden laptop was a Russian information operation. That ultimately led to Schiff being censured and prevented from rejoining the committee after Republicans won the House of Representatives in 2022.

Ratcliffe, who was DNI during Trump's first term, was the only major intelligence official to come out and tell the truth about the laptop. He did so under a barrage of attacks from the press claiming he was misleading the public to protect the soon-to-be second-term president. In the end, he was vindicated while people like Schiff never apologized for the falsehoods they pushed. That is exactly why Ratcliffe is the right man to lead the CIA. That organization has been politicized and weaponized against Americans for far too long. The time to bring everyone back in line is now, and those who don't want that can "find a new line of work."